Lawrence play off ban?

[ramtique]

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11696/11713147/derbys-tom-lawrence-could-miss-play-off-semi-finals-with-diving-ban

 

Could be bad news ....

 

 

[SuperDerbySuperRams]

I think he’ll be fine because there is contact (however small).

My gripe with these retrospective bans is that they only mainly apply at championship level with games that are televised, due to the audience and the variety of angles offered. It’s like with VAR only being used in the FA Cup at Premier League grounds, it’s not offering consistency 

[WystonRam]

This is being stoked by Leeds.

[QuitYourJibbaJivin]

He definitely catches his foot so Hel more than likely be ok

[Boycie]

Sky and their club Leeds are behind this, his foot is clearly in front of Lawrence’s.

I doubt they’ll both give over until a ruling is made.

[r_wilcockson]

With Gayle there was no contact whatsoever and Bamford got hit in the chest and went down holding his face. Lawrence actually got clipped on his foot, and also didn't exactly appeal for it. If he'd started rolling around on the floor and play acting I could understand it. No chance of a ban imo. 

[SaintRam]

I've seen lots of people on twitter sharing slow-motion videos with the caption "proof there is no contact" - and there is clearly visible contact in the video they've shared.

I'm hesitant to say that what contact there was was enough for him to go down, but that's not the point, is it? The contact is enough.

If they see the contact that I can see, they won't rule it deception. 

[Ellafella]

At the game in real time I thought it was a gift from the ref who reacted to the noise from the crowd but seeing it in slo-mo his standing foot was definitely clipped; the ref was 5 yards away and there was no doubt in his mind. No ban for Lawrence imo. Leeds fans stirring it big style. 

[Boycie]

We didn’t win the game on the penalty either.

Anyone remember the Leeds player rolling around the floor the other year after a “serious” tackle from Russell?

[WystonRam]

At least the moan in will have something to discuss.

[Millenniumram]

I think we’re in trouble here, looked like a dive to me. Thing is tho, we get punished retrospectively for this, but get nothing back retrospectively when Cole was acquitted of diving which we were punished in game for by not getting a pen. Doesn’t seem to be fair to work one way and not the other. Be a shame as Lawrence has been in better form, however against Leeds out to bully us, Bennett starting with a bit more strength may not be disaster.

[Bald Eagle's Barmy Army]

And when are they going to look at all the ones we should have had.

If this gets a ban I'd be very surprised. 

[BondJovi]

Both sky pundits said a penalty, the commentators thought not. If Lawrence gets a ban for that it is ridiculous. There is clear contact, enough to bring him down, maybe not but he has to change direction to avoid it. If he gets a ban for this, then players should be banned all the time as it happens everywhere on the pitch.

[Andicis]

It wasn't a dive, so he shouldn't. You can argue there wasn't a lot of contact, fine. But there was contact. Probably not enough for penalty, but to be a ban for diving surely has to be no contact at all?

[Will Hughes Hair]

Absolutely incumbent on us all to tell any Leeds fans we come into contact with that Lawrence won't be banned because there's a conspiracy to get Lampard promoted and another conspiracy to punish Leeds at every opportunity because no one likes them.

 

 

They'll lap it up.

[Grumpy Git]

I certainly remember Harry Kewell selling the ref. a pup in the Premership game at PP in 1999, but I'm not one to bear a grudge!

[Wignall12]

6 minutes ago, Ellafella said:

At the game in real time I thought it was a gift from the ref who reacted to the noise from the crowd but seeing it in slo-mo his standing foot was definitely clipped; the ref was 5 yards away and there was no doubt in his mind. No ban for Lawrence imo. Leeds fans stirring it big style. 

Let them stir all they like, it just tells me they're running scared of the prospect of playing us ........BRING IT ON ! ........(have I ever told you how much I despise that bunch ? ...Sir Brian had it RIGHT,  throw all your medals in the bin !) 

[DarkFruitsRam7]

Who gives a duck about whether it was a dive or not? If the ref made a mistake then he made a mistake. I've been of this belief long before this incident. Players try and cheat all the time but, for some reason, diving gets people particularly wound up. Are we going to punish players for claiming free kicks and corners now when they know that it's not their ball? What happens if a player accidentally trips over but doesn't tell the ref that there was no contact?

I'll be fuming if he gets banned.

[Woodley Ram]

It was a foul, there was clear contact with his foot, Lawrence made a meal of it, but there was contact therefore a foul, therefore a penalty. 

[Woodley Ram]

10 minutes ago, Andicis said:

It wasn't a dive, so he shouldn't. You can argue there wasn't a lot of contact, fine. But there was contact. Probably not enough for penalty, but to be a ban for diving surely has to be no contact at all?

How much contact do you need for it to be a penalty, a foul is a foul and if it in the penalty area its a penalty. You dont get two penalties for a really bad foul or half a penalty for an accidental foul